Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted
www.wired.com
Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/4658537

Why This Award-Winning Piece of AI Art Can’t Be Copyrighted::Matthew Allen’s AI art won first prize at the Colorado State Fair. But the US government has ruled it can’t be copyrighted because it’s too much “machine” and not enough “human.”

  • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
    53·
    un anno fa

    Haha. It seems like you’re very insecure about your profession and you’re choosing to lash out instead of examining your own feelings more honestly. Sorry to burst your bubble, don’t shoot the messenger 🫣

    You also don’t seem to understand what I was saying.

    What are analog tools? Strictly speaking, these are tools that don’t use electricity. They don’t require user manuals, and are easy to use.

    Like pencils and brushes you dolt.

    That’s correct, that is the proper usage.

    The closest analog would be an art director for a collage project.

    Here, you’re using the word to mean something completely different. Hence why it is preferable to use analogue

    • Skiv@lemmy.worldEnglish
      24·
      un anno fa

      No, you’re just talking out your ass and trying to claw back a win for yourself by pulling out grammar rules and now trying again to avoid addressing anything of substance I’ve said. Take your L and sit down.

      AI as it exists is commercially useless. I speak from experience because of course we looked at it immediately. It may grow into something actually useful for production work but that will never happen so long as it’s pulling everything from the internet - no studio or art director worth their weight will accept the legal risk or the indirect volatility of AI generated art when they can just tap Derek to make the exact requested adjustment directly. The very thing that allows people to feel like they are artists for using it is exactly why it cannot become a viable tool and this article shows exactly why.

      This will hold true until a tool is developed isolated from the wider internet and only fed with your studio’s original material OR the copyright laws get ratfucked by someone with more economic might than individual artists.

      • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
        42·
        un anno fa

        Keep telling yourself that, it seems to be working.

        You haven’t said much of substance, you’ve just made your bias abundantly clear, so it’s pointless for me to continue arguing when I already know where your bread is buttered.

        I was only trying to explore this topic from an objective, intellectual standpoint, but you seem to feel as if I am challenging your livelihood, so I will recuse myself.

        • Skiv@lemmy.worldEnglish
          23·
          un anno fa

          Not at all, I’ve laid out reasons for why:

          1. Your suppositions are incorrect, sorry to be the messenger, but my working understanding of my career definitely does outweight your “I think” in regard to what my peers do for a living.

          2. AI is not as viable as people want to believe it is (yet, at least) which happen to be the very same reasons behind the lack of copyright viability and why commercial teams are not using it. Because anyone working in the industry who has experienced these tools or put out any actual product is already laughing at how obvious it is. The courts are right, and the discussion is about how AI works and why it does not. Not “should it tho?”

          You on the other hand, opened with an attempt to shut down my working experience with suppositions because I contradicted you, belittlement and attempts to claim intellectual superiority (by hilariously being wrong on both counts) then when called out, you tried to swing everything to your interpretation of how someone must feel if they’re telling you you’re wrong and dumb for thinking that was an “intellectual exploration” of the topic at hand.

          I knew I was talking to a fool, but damn. This is impressive.

          There is no bias to have, AI as it exists is not a viable tool for commercial use, it rightfully does not meet the requirements to be copyrighted. Your apparent interest in denying that truth seems to be the root of this projection.

          My livelihood is not at risk. At worst I’ll be tasked with laying out what my team will need to populate our own in-house AI in order for them to utilize it for low priority bulk assets. The chances it would be used for anything of importance are very low because it’s just another route to a goal we can already achieve easily.

          So at worst, my job is even more secure and all I have to do is spend a week getting paid for adding yet another tool to my set. None of my teams livelihoods are at risk either because we all understand the parts AI and a prompt engineer will not know could or should be described. If they did, they’d understand that writing and editing prompts out is slower than just doing the work directly.

          • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
            3·
            un anno fa

            You have envisioned 10 trillion possible futures and in every one of them, you are absolutely correct and have nothing to fear. You are wise indeed.

    • Skiv@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      un anno fa

      Here, you’re using the world to mean something completely different. Hence why it is preferable to use analogue

      No, I use the world to live on. Your entire argument is now invalid, oh shit.

      I used the word analog because we’re still talking about an electronic tool vs not electronic set of things.